Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that results are a superset of operator base plus owner-registered categories, but says nothing about auth requirements, ordering, or pagination beyond that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with zero waste: the first defines the resource and its scope, the second routes the output to its consumer. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a trivial list tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description conveys what the returned keys represent and how to use them downstream, which is the key completeness gap for a list tool. Minor gap is the absence of any note on return ordering or count, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (auth_token) exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. It correctly omits redundant param details, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (self_classification categories) and clarifies the category sources as operator base plus owner-registered. Clear and distinguishable, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it replaces, which would be required for a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent where the returned keys are consumed: create_decision template.self_classification when content_inclusion_flag=1. It names the sibling tool and the exact condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.